Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/753,907

LID FOR BEVERAGE CONTAINERS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 25, 2024
Examiner
WEINERTH, GIDEON R
Art Unit
3736
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
1329421 B C Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
57%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
72%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 57% of resolved cases
57%
Career Allow Rate
428 granted / 752 resolved
-13.1% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
775
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
50.6%
+10.6% vs TC avg
§102
20.0%
-20.0% vs TC avg
§112
23.2%
-16.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 752 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of Claims 1, 8-9 in the reply filed on December 15, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charbonnet (US 8424711) in view of Brady (US 2017036). Regarding Claim 1, Charbonnet discloses lid (100) for a beverage container comprising a lower lid having a perimeter skirt (102) adapted to secure the lower lid to an opening of the beverage container. Charbonnet also discloses a lip (106) portion radially inward from the skirt and extending upward from the skirt and defining an inside surface. Charbonnet also discloses an annular portion radially inward from the lip portion and defining a plurality of openings (112) through which liquid from the container may flow wherein the annular portion comprises a trough (channel 114) in which the openings are defined. Charbonnet does not disclose an upper horizontal lid which is enables the upper lid to move away in response to the flow of fluid. Brady discloses a similar lid (1) comprising a lower lid (2) having a perimeter skirt and defining a plurality of opening (3) through which a liquid from a container may flow. Brady also discloses an upper horizontal lid (4) resting on the lower lid by gravity and having a perimeter edge that is sized to closely conform with the inside surface. The upper lid (4) covers the annular portion as it rests on the lower lid. Brady discloses a stop mechanism (shaft 9) cooperating with the lower lid and the upper lid to limit the range of motion of the upper lid with respect to the lower lid, wherein the stop mechanism enables the upper lid to move away for a distance from the lower lid in response to pressure exerted upon the upper lid by liquid flowing out of the container through the openings as the container is tilted, and wherein the stop mechanism prevents the upper lid from being expelled from the lower lid, and wherein the upper lid returns to resting on the lower lid by gravity as the container is returned to vertical (Page 1 Col. 2 Lines 5-17). Charbonnet and Brady are analogous inventions in the art of lids for containers having flow-through apertures for liquid contents. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lid of Charbonnet with the upper horizontal lid and stop mechanism of Brady in order to facilitate the automatic opening and closing of the container to form a secure closure against the entrance of air into the container, the escape of gas from the container, and provide a convenient means for the user to pour liquids without the necessity of removing the cap (Col. 1 Lines 1-17). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIDEON R. WEINERTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Orlando Aviles can be reached at (571) 270-5531. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /GIDEON R WEINERTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 25, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600531
CONTAINER LID, AND CONTAINER ASSEMBLY HAVING SAME COUPLED THERETO
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595090
EXTRUSION BLOW-MOLDED CONTAINER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592112
COIN MAILER AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583653
TANK BREATHER CAP WITH INTEGRATED FILTER, SPLASH PROTECTION, AND NIPPLE FOR BREATHER HOSE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576257
TAMPER-RESISTANT CAP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
57%
Grant Probability
72%
With Interview (+15.2%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 752 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month